Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside the Windows Console

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 259 posts

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#151

Post by OliverJones »

Very interesting. I learned a lot.

The author mentions "re-re-re-implementing" command line history as a disadvantage of using shells in a dumb terminal emulator.

But, with respect, I think he's wrong about that. Command line history is a valuable productivity enhancer, and tying the details of its operation to the terminal rather than the shell restricts functionality and flexibility. For example, witness the differences between git bash (mingw) and cmd on Windows.

Inbuilt OS stuff should be as simple as possible. It doesn't have to be precisely /dev/tty - like, but it should be simple. Partly to avoid bloat, and partly because it's much less flexible than userland stuff.

Even when RAM was worth twice its weight in gold, various UNIX shells weren't heavy. Now? not worth worrying about.

I admit I came up as a UNIX user so I favor sh-like history. But still, Windows terminal history just isn't as good. (I wish it didn't deduplicate repeated commands and lose them when they're edited.)

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#152

Post by mschaef »

zadjii wrote: post #14
gmueckl wrote: post #11

So they have been working on uograding this since 2014? So far, the visible results seem a bit underwhelming for the invested time and effort. How big is the team? What am I missing here?

Well, the team is small, we're up to three whole devs now. Since 2014 we've been doing a lot of work o help bring our VT implementation up to par (to help enable WSL), as well as implementing new features such as 256/RGB color support, improved accessibility features, and we're even releasing a pty-like API for Windows. Not only that, but since the team was founded we discovered that conhost was not the only console…

Thanks for your work on this... this is going to make a big difference for lots of folks. (Myself included.)

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#153

Post by lispm »

userbinator wrote: post #136
yoz-y wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik, 10ms is not achievable nowadays, unless you use a very old computer. https://danluu.com/input-lag/

I'd be curious to see the original IBM PC/XT/AT tested too. I guess it would be near the low end of the list too. Also, the last entry in the list provides another reason why Lisp machines never became popular --- 300ms of input lag! That's definitely in unusable territory, especially when other machines of the time were almost an order of magnitude faster.

If you look at the table you'll see that the 3620 from Symbolics in 1986 was an entirely different system. It had a megapixel bitmap-only screen as a separate console (which had mouse, keyboard, serial and an audio interface) with console cables often of 30 meters. The refrigerator size machines often would be running in some machine room and the console would be used in some office room. The console was handled by a separate Front End Processor with a communication protocol over the console cable. An entirely different technology for a different setup.

Later Symbolics Lisp machines used different technology for the graphics system, but basically the same console setup.

See here for some more info about the 3620: http://lispm.de/3620/3620.html

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#155

Post by degenerate »

jscholes wrote: post #154

Found the article content quite interesting but the tone of the writing (emojis and exclamation marks everywhere) really put me off. Sounded forced and added nothing.

It reminded me of a very excited Steve Ballmer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMhrRovP9qA

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#156

Post by ygra »

Tarean wrote: post #137
userbinator wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"very quickly" is subjective, but compared to cmd it is noticeably slower even in a fresh install of Windows --- the few times I'm forced to actually use it to configure some things.

I think powershell is kept in memory so only the first start should be slow. Although I don't really notice the first start being slower anymore - maybe it preloads depending on settings or is just fast enough with an ssd?

Windows picks up usage patterns and pre-loads applications to match that. But indeed, right after launching an application it's still in the disk cache anyway, so subsequent launches (until heavy I/O) should be quick.

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#157

Post by ygra »

userbinator wrote: post #139
zadjii wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just flat out wrong: https://i.imgur.com/ae1yyXI.png We added support for TTF fonts a few releases ago.

...and by "few releases ago", you mean Windows 2000? http://unixwiz.net/images/console-setup3.gif (Personally, I don't care for TTF since I prefer the contrast and sharpness of a good pixel font, like this one: http://www.hassings.dk/lars/fonts.html )

I think there were two steps. Yes, TrueType fonts have been available for quite a while, but the list was fixed and you had to edit the registry to add other fonts. The current state seems to be that monospaced fonts installed are automatically picked up by that list, so no registry editing necessary anymore.

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#158

Post by xvilka »

Hopefully, support for bidirectional text will be added soon. Microsoft needs to lead the way of handling it in console programs. Even in UNIX systems, only a few terminal emulators support bidirectional text properly.

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#159

Post by royjacobs »

code_duck wrote: post #134
royjacobs wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...so if they don't fix it, the console sucks. But if they do fix it you still find the need to be snarky?

I think the concept is that if they had added it a long time ago, is that would be good or average. Adding it very late is not worthy of praise, and lacking it for years is still worthy of condemnation. While the change may be part of a broader positive trend, it does not absolve them of the past.

Why not, though? Is it really that useful to fill every Microsoft-related topic with comments that amount to "Micro$oft lol"-level trolling?

I mean, they used to suck, we get it. They're actively trying to improve but that, too, is not enough.

  - "You used to be fat!"
  - "I'm thin now, though, through hard work. Isn't that worth something?"
  - "...but you used to be fat!"

Re: Inside the Windows Console

#160

Post by tootie »

m_st wrote: post #24

I tried using PowerShell or Hyper. But these are just so slow to start. So I'm always coming back to cmd.exe. It is fast and serves my basic needs just perfect. When I need more, I just type 'bash'. And bash also starts faster than PowerShell or Hyper. So I don't see why they now change WIN+X and Explorer to use PowerShell rather than cmd.exe. Keep improving cmd.exe. But please don't make it bloated.

I just keep one or two shells open all day.
Post reply on HN